Skip to contentU.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home Feedback
Planning
FHWA > HEP > Planning > TSP > Forums

PLANNING IT SAFE: Integrating Safety in Transportation System Design and Operations

KANSAS CITY

February 4, 2003

Sponsored by
The Mid-America Regional Council
The US Department of Transportation

PREFACE

Each statewide and metropolitan planning process shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users

TEA-21

In 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 stCentury or TEA-21. For the first time, this legislation requires state departments of transportation (DOTs)and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to incorporate safety and security as priority factors in their respective transportation planning processes and activities. Prior to TEA-21, safety was sometimes a prominent factor in project development and design, but this legislation calls for safety consciousness in a more comprehensive, systemwide, multimodal context. It implies collaboration with the highway safety and motor carrier safety communities, transit operators, local jurisdictions and others.

To initiate discussion on the TEA-21 safety-planning factor, approximately 40 experienced professionals convened in Washington, DC in May 2000 to explore the independent planning processes and to identify data, tools, partners and other resources that are currently available or in need of development for implementing the safety requirement. The meeting identified several issues associated with safety integration:

Background

The Washington meeting identified several action steps for promoting safety conscious planning (TSP) and an informal ad hoc working group formed to provide guidance and follow up. One of the recommended initiatives was to encourage a series of forums bringing representatives of the various interests together to discuss strategies for sharing resources and working collaboratively. The Working Group intended that each forum be tailored to the needs of the host jurisdiction rather than establish a standardized model approach.

The Mid-America Regional Council is one of 12 transportation planning agencies to commit resources and provide leadership in safety conscious planning by hosting a partnership forum. A planning meeting took place in July 2002. The purpose was to articulate the purpose and objectives for the forum, outline an agenda, develop a participant list and address the logistical and process issues for conducting the event.

OBJECTIVES

The planning group articulated the following objectives for the Forum:

  1. Improve the transportation planning process from a safety perspective.
  2. Educate the constituent agencies and organizations to elevate their understanding of safety issues.
  3. Gain momentum on continuing projects, e.g. the Smart Moves transit project, Kansas City Scout (the region's freeway management system) and Operation Green Light, the region's arterials traffic signal coordination project.
  4. Increase knowledge of data systems and access to quality data and information.
  5. Understand and address the problems associated with heightened awareness of homeland security issues.
  6. Identify and clarify the connection between operations and safety, especially as it relates to proactive and reactive planning strategies.
  7. Address a series of questions:

Participants

The target audience included state and local planners, city managers and planners, traffic engineers, public works directors, transit agency managers and planners, highway safety managers and planners, law enforcement (including motor carrier enforcement), emergency management professionals, bicycle/pedestrian advocates and consulting firms. Approximately 50 attended the forum although not all of the intended groups, such as the EMS community, were reached. (Appendix A lists the Forum participants.)

Welcome, Purpose and Overview

David Warm, Executive Director of MARC, Joan Roessler, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Region 7 Office and Fred Abousleman, National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), welcomed the participants. Warm said that the purpose of the event is to increase awareness and understanding of safety issues and potential solutions; elevate thinking on safety of MARC employees and their partners and dialogue on realistic action planning and problem solving strategies. Roessler expressed her agency's resolve and commitment to safety improvements and collaborative partnerships.

Fred Abousleman, Transportation Director for the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), expressed appreciation for MARC's eagerness to participate in this important safety initiative. NARC is an active member of the national Working Group that provides leadership and support for safety conscious planning initiatives. He noted the concern that safety has been increasingly omitted from the national political dialogue since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Even though new threats have become apparent, the fundamental issue hasn't changed. Traffic crashes constitute the nation's number one public health problem. NARC and other partners are working to focus Congress on the issue, remind them that safety is still at the forefront and make safety the premier issue in reauthorization of the transportation funding legislation. NARC is sponsoring safety forums, developing an awards program and considering challenge grants for safety initiatives among its members. The MARC forum is the first such initiative, and the experience will help move the other priorities forward.

Planning and Safety: a national overview

The forum planning committee developed an informal benchmarking process by setting the stage early using invited national representatives with experience and expertise in both the planning and the safety perspectives.

Planning

Tere Franceschi, Federal Highway Administration Office of Interstate and Border Planning, discussed the implementation of past, current and future national initiatives to support safety conscious planning (TSP). The concept operates effectively in an environment where all planning agencies:

In the past, safety considerations have taken place at the design stage. TEA-21 requires safety considerations in the planning process with systemwide and multimodal perspectives.

Tere Franceschi

Common Challenges

Franceschi described experiences, such as the identification of common challenges, from other safety conscious planning forums. The issues appear to be somewhat consistent across jurisdictions.

National Initiatives

FHWA and other partners in the national Working Group are supporting research to identify analysis tools and safety management processes; publishing research circulars with SCP-related information and developing tools and training programs, performing outreach through conferences and other networking opportunities, continuously identifying new initiatives to support SCP and designing a web site to serve as a clearinghouse for SCP information, events and contacts (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scp). Franceschi invited the participants to identify and nominate noteworthy practices for web site placement.

The State of the Art in Transportation Safety Planning

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is often referred to as a model for safety planning at the local level. The MARC planning team invited Paul Tait, SEMCOG Executive Director, to speak about the Michigan experience.

Background

Safety integration began at SEMCOG long before the TEA-21 mandate. Safety planning at SEMCOG must take into account 4.9 million people with 3.8M motor vehicles, 3.3M drivers and 27.5M border crossings from Canada annually.

Making the Case

Safety planning complements the traditional transportation planning process. It makes good sense because of the high cost of crashes, liability issues, crash trends and the fact that traffic safety improvements tend to be low cost and produce a high benefit that enhances quality of life: In 2000, the SEMCOG region experienced 193,955 traffic crashes, 485 fatalities and 5,109 severe injuries. Traffic crashes cost the state of Michigan 4.9B each year and, if all costs were calculated, the total cost is probably much higher. The Michigan Department of Transportation pays between 1M and 25M annually for crash related lawsuits. The highest costs, however, are associated with the human consequences - death and serious injuries.

photo of an ambulance at an accident scene on a divided highway Traffic safety improvements often lack support from the public and their elected officials. First, there is a general lack of interest in the issue because traffic crashes seem random; few people die or are seriously injured at any given time in any one place so there is no enemy to demonize. Some suggest the most effective strategy is to "put a face one it" and play to emotions. However, Tait prefers science over a dramatic approach. SEMCOG's philosophy is to provide data driven information and educate the decision makers. The strategy is designed for long-term consequences and utilizes repetition rather than melodrama. The second challenge is the sensitivity to liability issues. SEMCOG educates the locals to view analyzing safety problems and publishing the results in transportation plans as performing due diligence. By showing due diligence, a community can defend its position and show it is not ignoring the issue. It protects communities from the public out cry and lawsuits that have accompanied the environmental issues.

 

Trends

Exposure to traffic crashes is measured by the number of vehicle miles traveled in a particular jurisdiction. In the SEMCOG region, VMT is expected to increase by 33 percent over the next 30 years, and most of that will occur on congested roads.

More of the driving population will be elderly. The proportion of people ≥65 has increased from 1.1 million (12 percent of the total population) in 1990 to 1.7 million (17 percent of the total population) in 2020 - a 55 percent increase while the total population is expected to increase only 12 percent. Age related functional declines are not yet well understood, and their relationship to safe driving skills is even less predictable. Many issues relate to the safe mobility of older persons and SEMCOG, like most of the nation, is just beginning to address the issues.

Planning it Safe

Safety is a priority in the SEMCOG planning process. The overall objectives are to:

SEMCOG

Several types of data are used in the transportation safety planning process. SEMCOG begins with state police crash data using GIS technology to accurately identify crash locations. The analysis also includes transportation-planning data, road width and configuration, traffic volumes, congestion, land use and pavement conditions. The software is able to identify high crash locations, examine causes, identify solutions and produce a cost/benefit analysis. These analyses are provided to the local communities. Local analyses factors include crash severity and type, crashes by age, gender, time of year and day, and other factors, such as impaired driving, safety belt use and truck, bus and nonmotorist crashes. The data analyses also include demographic and road information, recommended countermeasures and a cost/benefit analysis. Training enables communities to conduct their own analyses.

SEMCOG has conducted studies on special issues that have produced positive results:

Local Analysis Program Results

Figure 1: Red Light Running

map of Wayne Counting showing red light running traffic crashes

sign: The light is red for a reason so stop, Michicagn Stop on Red! coalition.


Deer Crossing Crashes

Figure 2: Deer Crossing Crashes

map showing deer crossing crashes in the tri county reqion map showing deer crossing crashes in the tri county reqion

The Long-Range Plan

SEMCOG's 2025 transportation plan is focused on five key components: preserving existing roads and bridges, congestion management, public transit, mobility for nonmotorized road users and safety. Of the 13B capital investment budget, 1.17B or nine percent is targeted to safety as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Investment by Work Type

Pie chart: $13 Billion (Capital) Transportation System Investmetn (by work type). Safety=9% or $1.17 billion. Study, 1%; non motorized, 1%; preservation, 39%, bridge, 16%, other, 12%, capacity, 12%, transit, 10%. Note: The 2025 RTP Project LIst includes$4 billion for transportation. Another $7 billion in road operating is recognized but not listed.

Because of the planning process, SEMCOG has programmed and implemented safety projects using non-safety dedicated funds; integrated safety into overall transportation program; increased the sensitivity of the public and media to safety issues; increased use of traffic and safety consultants and reversed an alarming trend toward increased crashes, fatalities and serious injuries.

Charge to the Audience: Go for It!

Tait offered the following advice to the forum participants:

The Road User in Safety Transportation Systems

The forum planning team invited Bella Dinh-Zarr, AAA, to provide an overview of the road user in safety planning considerations. The presentation addressed problem identification as well as problem solutions from a national perspective.

Traffic crashes constitute one of America's most serious public health problems. It is the number one cause of death for all people ages 1-34; it is among the top 10 causes of death for all ages; the US experiences 42,000 deaths, five million injuries and over 230B in economic costs each year. By improving roadway facilities, producing safer vehicles and changing road user behaviors, the US is currently experiencing the lowest death rate per VMT in its history as illustrated in Figure 4; yet, more safety improvements are needed. Forty-two thousand deaths each year are far too many. The level of human and economic loss due to traffic crashes is unacceptable and unsustainable.

Figure 4: US Crash Fatality Rate per VMT

Graph: click image for text version.

Impaired Driving, Speeding and Safety Belt Use

There are several major components to crash, death and injury causation. Some of the more obvious include impaired driving, driving too fast for conditions and failure to wear safety belts. Changing road user behavior can bring the largest gains, but changing behavior to increase safety is not easy. For example, the proportion of all fatalities that are related to alcohol use and impaired driving is 40 percent. This is a dramatic improvement over the 56 percent figure of the early 80's; however, progress has slowed to a halt over the past decade, and the public has lost interest in the issue. Speeding or driving too fast for conditions presents another education and enforcement challenge for the nation.

Figure 5: Alcohol Related Fatalities in the US

Pie chart: None 60%. Alcohol 40%.

Figure 6: Speeding Related Fatalities in the US (2000)

Pie chart: None 70%. Speeding 30%.

The single most effective means of reducing injuries in crashes is buckling up. Safety belts are 45 percent effective in reducing injuries, and adding an airbag increases the effectiveness of belts by another 10-14 percent. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that safety belts and air bags together prevented 123,000 deaths between 1975 and 1999. Yet, at least a quarter of the nation's population continues to ride unbelted, and these drivers tend to be the nation's most dangerous road users. Failure to wear belts, driving too fast and recklessly and impaired driving are behaviors that tend to cluster.

Novice Drivers

Novice drivers are a potential target group for reducing crashes, deaths and injuries. Teens are more likely to crash than any other age group (per VMT). Some of the crash characteristics include:

Graduated driver licensing laws have been passed in all but two states. Many of these contain language that prohibits unsupervised driving for a period of time, nighttime curfews and bans or limits on teen passengers. A number of research studies have shown these laws, when fully implemented, are saving lives.

Older Persons

The US population is aging, a phenomenon often referred to as the "Graying of America."

Although older drivers are less likely to be involved in a crash than their younger counterparts, when involved they are more likely to be killed or injured because of their increased frailty. Figures 8 and 9 and demonstrate these phenomena.

Figure 8: Crash Rate by Age

bar chart: click image for text version

(Source NCSA, 2000)

Figure 9: Driver Fatality Rate by VMT

graph: click image for text version

Safety-oriented road design such as intersection improvements, better signage, lighting and road markings have the potential to greatly reduce death and injury to our aging population. Furthermore, these improvements will ultimately protect people of all ages.

Intersection Safety

Each year 2.8 million crashes (44% of all crashes) occur in intersections and result in 8,500 deaths. Dinh-Zarr described a successful southeastern Michigan project that uses safety audits to identify high intersection crash locations and a public/private partnership that provided funding and expertise for reducing the risk. AAA Michigan partnered with SEMCOG in the Road Improvement Demonstration Program. At the end of five years, crashes had been reduced by 26 percent and injuries by 46 percent. More projects such as this one would undoubtedly protect the lives of all road users.

Regional Perspectives

MARC, like other MPOs and regional councils, lacks an organized planning strategy focused on safety; however, safety projects and programs exist independently of the long-range plan. A sampling of current work was presented by several of MARC's partners to illustrate accomplishments, identify challenges and initiate a dialogue with current and potential safety partners.

Project Design

Sherri McIntyre, Assistant City Engineer, Kansas City, discussed a regional bicycle initiative to illustrate the complexity of the issues involved in redesigning a roadway to accommodate safe walking and bicycling when the original design did not allow for them. First, the political decision makers had to be educated and convinced before access management and roadway improvement requirements could be addressed. Selecting an appropriate design that provides for the safety of everyone presents a challenge.

Incorporating safety is sometimes a balancing act, and things cannot always be perfectly balanced. For example, there is some controversy over whether bicyclists are safer riding in dedicated lanes or wider regular lanes. The City surveyed the bicyclists and asked which they preferred. The result was a 50-50 split! Another example involves pedestrian safety. If the signals are set to allow the slowest pedestrians safe passage to a center island or the other side of the roadway, they have to be informed or they won't use them. If the signals are timed and the pedestrians use them, traffic flow is impeded, which can lead to aggressive driving, speeding and other unsafe driver behaviors. McIntyre's advice is for everyone to use ADA designs, which, according to her, will improve safety for everyone.

Systems Operations During and After Construction

Warren Roberts, Operations Liaison Engineer, Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), provided a tutorial on best practices for establishing and maintaining safe work zones. He noted that MoDOT has placed a Traffic Control Manual for Field Operations on the web site for those who don't have access to the Minimum Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) on a daily basis.

Work Zone Issues

MoDOT objectives for establishing safe, efficient and user-friendly work zone areas are as follows:

Objectives

To accomplish these objectives the agency has created a series of strategic initiatives:

Strategies

Public Transit

photo of a busDick Jarrold, Senior Director of Systems Development and Engineering, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (ATA) said ATA believes that safety begins at the planning process and welcomed the opportunity to collaborate with the partners brought together in the Forum. Transit planning follows an integrated process that utilizes multidisciplinary design teams, standard systems and designs and community input to result in an agency-wide system safety plan.

The Kansas City transit system is primarily made up of buses. Some of these have ramps rather than steps, a safety feature, as featured in the picture above. Jarrold enumerated the safety factors the transit system is responsible for addressing.

Intersection Safety: Red Light Running

photo of a multi lane intersectionAlonzo Linan, Traffic Division Manager, City of Olathe, discussed a pilot demonstration project in the cities of Overland Park and Olathe, Kansas to deter red light running. To determine what technical applications would work best in Kansas's communities, his team sought to understand the reasons people run red lights; i.e., to determine whether the behavior is related to distraction or purposeful. The data show that drivers guilty of red light running violations enter the intersections a full second after the light has turned. Linan said the analysis shows that drivers are making a purposeful decision to run the lights, which implies that enforcement may be the most effective countermeasure. This shows that they are making a decision to run the light rather than it being a result of inadvertent behavior.

The data show that half of all crashes in the Overland Park area occur at intersections and about one fourth are related to red light running. At some intersections the number and proportion is higher. Over the study period, the data showed 929 violations, 55 percent of which occurred during the all red phase. The highest speed recorded was 75 mph in a 45 mph posted zone. Clearly, intersections are hazardous and red light running is particularly worrisome.

System User Behavior

Rosalie Thornburg is the Traffic Safety Bureau Chief for the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). The Traffic Safety Bureau is the primary vehicle in Kansas for influencing driver behavior. One of the tools utilized to improve safe driving behavior is statewide public information and education campaigns. Thornburg informed the participants about the current initiative designed to inform Kansas road users - Kansas Driving: Safe not Sorry. The program is purposefully broad based to serve as an umbrella for all KDOT safety initiatives and provides a general approach and materials focused on driver behavior.

The program design was thoroughly researched including a statewide telephone survey to learn what would appeal to the citizens to ensure that the campaign would attract attention and behavior change. Kansans responded that they are affected by messages that appeal to courtesy and common sense. KDOT next looked at the accident data to identify the most common driving errors. Some of the materials focus on the subjects identified through this analysis: local intersections, speeding and following too close. The Bureau has developed and disseminated teaching kits. Currently there are 52 trained presenters, a PowerPoint presentation, a series of 20 driver alert cards that can be used alone or in combination as handouts and teaching materials and a video. Effectiveness is difficult to assess but the Bureau is looking at the data to determine if the targeted behaviors are becoming less represented in crashes.

System Planning

David Schwartz, a KDOT engineer addressed safety as a function of the long-range plan, which is a policy plan that includes a large safety role. Schwartz leads a steering committee to coordinate KDOT's safety plan. The KDOT goal is to provide an effective transportation system that operates with a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of risk. Major safety impact projects included in the plan address bridge programs, railroad crossings, hazard elimination and intersection improvements.

Kansas builds safety into the prioritization process and uses a computer-based program to identify priorities based on the functional classification of the facility. Examples include narrow bridges, shoulder widths, substandard site distances, lane widths and substandard curves. Driver exposure attributes can account for up to 44 percent of the weight for a given section. The calculations are adjusted for accident rate, posted speed, route class and capacity. Recently the analysis has been modified to include safety variables, such as fatal accident rates.

Discussion Summary

MARC asked the participants to reflect on the information presented and their experiences to identify:

What works?

The participant reports showcased many successful local projects, such as KC Scout, accident reduction zones, bike racks on buses, ATA, partnerships with police and fire departments, Opticom [3]; Operation Green Light and the various information programs and campaigns. MARC and its partners received high praise for collaboration and consensus building efforts. Safety planning uses existing guidelines and the design process is succeeding. Overall, safety integration is receiving more emphasis.

What Needs Improvement?

The participants produced a list of areas for focused improvement.

What information or analysis is necessary for improvement?

Data and information needs include identifying and disseminating information on analytic techniques, GIS mapping coordination, integrating timely accident and travel data across the region, linkages among law enforcement, emergency managements and others for accident response, better information on distracted driving, federal guidelines to improve bike trails and bikeways and a consistent strategy for interacting with the federal agencies.

What action steps should be pursued?

  1. Study and identify best practices for understanding and addressing the data issues.
  2. Develop a method for more consistent accident coding and include causation as an element in the reports.
  3. Increase enforcement of red light running, safety belt use and other traffic laws to prevent crashes, injuries and fatalities.
  4. Conduct more forums and other events to increase networking, information sharing on best practices, collaboration and cooperation. "We can't expect the public to understand and buy-in if we don't understand it ourselves. We need to educate ourselves and the politicians."
  5. Discuss the possibility of large scale messaging campaigns. Use meetings of the area's city managers as one method for information dissemination.
  6. Identify training and other educational activities for driver improvement; consider establishing an interactive web site to announce training opportunities.
  7. Develop better tools for access management analysis and implementation strategies.
  8. Increase pedestrian access to transit and other locations.
  9. Promote passage of a standard safety belt law.
  10. Identify strategies and techniques for improving and increasing traffic law enforcement.
  11. Address and overcome constraints at the state level.

Summary and Conclusions

The Forum has reinforced the need for thoughtful and integrated strategies to provide safe mobility for our citizens.

David Warm

David Warm announced that MARC would condense and disseminate information from the forum, identify two to four areas for emphasis, reconvene the constituencies, such as law enforcement, EMS and elected officials and begin raising the issues in a more formal way. He thanked the participants for their daily efforts and for taking some time to think about how to improve safety in the region. He also expressed appreciation to NARC and FHWA for the impetus to move forward and financial support.

Appendix A

Participants List

Planning It Safe: Participant list

RON ACHELPOHL
600 BROADWAY, SUITE 300
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY MO 64105
Phone: 816-474-4240
Fax: 816-421-7758
E-mail: RONA@MARC.ORG

BILL AINSWORTH
9400 WARD PARKWAY
BURNS & MC DONNELL
KANSAS CITY MO 64114
Phone: 816-822-3019
Fax: 816-822-3514
E-mail: BAINSWORTH@BURNSMCD.COM

SCOTT ALLEN
903 MAIN
CITY OF BLUE SPRINGS-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLUE SPRINGS MO 64015
Phone: 816-228-0207
Fax: 816-228-0225

GUY ALON
8500 SANTA FE DRIVE
CITY OF OVERLAND PARK
OVERLAND PARK KS 66212
Phone: 913-895-6187
Fax: 913-895-5055
E-mail: GALON@OPKANSAS.ORG

BOB ALVA
3300 S. TOPEKA BLVD., SUITE 1
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (Topeka)
TOPEKA KS 66611-2237
Phone: 785-267-7286
Fax: 785-267-7290
E-mail: ROBERT.ALVA@dot.gov

MATT AMENT
903 W MAIN STREET
CITY OF BLUE SPRINGS
BLUE SPRINGS MO 64015
Phone: 816-228-0110
Fax: 816-228-7592
E-mail: MAMENT@OLATHEKS.ORG

FELIX E. AMPARANO
12613 N.E. 139TH. STREET
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (Kansas City)
KEARNEY MO 64060
Phone: 816-407-9150
E-mail: amparano@dot.gov

BOB BECKER
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-0321
Fax: 816-622-0440
E-mail: BECKER2@MAIL.MoDOT.STATE.MO.US

NORMAN BEEMAN
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-0413
Fax: 816-622-0440
E-mail: BEEMAN1@MAIL.MoDOT.STATE.MO.US

J. MICHAEL BOWEN
3300 S. TOPEKA BLVD., SUITE 1
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (Topeka)
TOPEKA KS 66611-2237
Phone: 785-267-7281
Fax: 785-267-7290
E-mail: J.MICHAEL.BOWEN@dot.gov

DONNA BROWN
1350 E. 17TH. STREET
KC AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
KANSAS CITY MO 64108
Phone: 816-346-0311
Fax: 816-346-0305
E-mail: DBROWN@KCATA.ORG

DONNA COATSWORTH
111 E. MAPLE
CITY OF INDEPENDENCE-PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
INDEPENDENCE MO 64050
Phone: 816-325-7608
Fax: 816-325-7603
E-mail: DCOATSWORTH@INDEPMO.ORG

JAMES DAVIS
103 N MAIN
JACKSON COUNTY-PUBLIC WORKS
INDEPENDENCE MO 64050
Phone: 816-881-4530
Fax: 816-881-4448
E-mail: JDAVIS@GW.CO.JACKSON.MO.US

FAUNA DEAN
600 BROADWAY SUITE #300
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY MO 64105
Phone: 816-474-4240
Fax: 421-7758
E-mail: FDEAN@MARC.ORG

LEANNA DEPUE
HUMPHREYS 201, MISSOURI SAFETY CENTER
WARRENSBURG MO 64093
Phone: 660-543-4830
Fax: 660-543-4482
Email: depue@cmsu1.cmsu.edu

BELLA DINH-ZARR
AAA
1440 NEW YORK AVE., NW, SUITE- 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-6001
Phone: 202- 942-2060
Fax: 202 783-4788
Email: dinhzarr@national.aaa.com

ARNALL EARLY
P.O. 160
JACKSON COUNTY-PUBLIC WORKS
GRAIN VALLEY MO 64029
Phone: 816-847-7050
Fax: 816-847-7051
E-mail: AEARLY@JACKSONGOV.ORG

TOM EVANS
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-0421
Fax: 816-622-0440
E-mail: EVANSTL@MAIL.MoDOT.STATE.MO.US

TERE FRANCESCHI
OFFICE OF INTERSTATE & BORDER PLANNING
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
400 7 thSTREET, SW, ROOM 3301
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
Phone: 202.366.4074
tere.franceschi@dot.gov

TODD GIRDLER
515 KANSAS AVENUE, SUITE 404
TOPEKA-SHAWNEE COUNTY METROPOLITAN
TOPEKA KS 66603
Phone: 913-368-3728
Fax: 913-368-3800

MARISELA GUILLEN
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-0423
Fax: 816-622-0440
E-mail: GUILLM@MAIL.MoDOT.STATE.MO.US

CONI HADDEN
101 EAST KANSAS, PO BOX
CITY OF LIBERTY
LIBERTY MO 64068 Phone: 816-792-6033
Fax: 816-792-6091
E-mail: CMACDOUGALL@CI.LIBERTY.MO.US

GEORGE HANDY
103 N MAIN
JACKSON COUNTY-PUBLIC WORKS
INDEPENDENCE MO 64050
Phone: 816-881-4530
Fax: 816-881-4448
E-mail: GHANDY@JACKSONGOV.ORG

MARC HANSEN
600 BROADWAY, SUITE 300
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY MO 64105
Phone: 816-474-4240
Fax: 816-421-7758

MELL HENDERSON
600 BROADWAY SUITE #300
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY MO 64105
Phone: 816-474-4240
Fax: 816-421-7758
E-mail: MELLH@MARC.ORG

SUSAN HERBEL
343 DEVON PLACE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
HEATHROW FL 32746
Phone: 407.829.6424
Fax: 407.829.6520
E-mail: sbhatgaia@aolcom

JIM HUBBLE
600 BROADWAY, SUITE 300
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY MO 64105
Phone: 816-474-4240
Fax: 816-421-7758
E-mail:

MARK HUFFHINES
3300 S. TOPEKA BLVD., SUITE 1
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (Topeka)
TOPEKA KS 66611-2237
Phone: 785-267-7299 X 329
Fax: 785-267-7290
E-mail: MARK.HUFFHINES@dot.gov

KEVIN IRVING
209 ADAMS
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (Jefferson City)
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65102
Phone: 573-636-7104
Fax: 573-636-9283

DUANE JACKSON
16616 NE 116TH
CLAY COUNTY-HIGHWAYS
KEARNEY MO 64060
Phone: 816-792-7606
Fax: 816-792-1553

DICK JARROLD
1200 E. 18TH. STREET
KC AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
KANSAS CITY MO 64108
Phone: 816-346-0356
Fax: 816-346-0253
E-mail: DJARROLD@KCATA.ORG

ALONZO LINAN
100 E. SANTA FE
CITY OF OLATHE
OLATHE KS 66051
Phone: 913-393-6207
E-mail: ALINAN@OLATHEKS.ORG

ALLAN LUDIKER
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-6500
Fax: 816-622-

BOB LUDLOW
11617 MC KINLEY
KANSAS CITY MO 64134
Phone: 816-763-5863
E-mail: BOB_LUDLOW@KCMO.ORG

DAVE MAC DONALD
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC) KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-0425
Fax: 816-622-0440
E-mail: modot01@mail.state.mo.us

SHERRI K. MC INTYRE
414 E 12TH ST, 19TH FLOOR
CITY OF KCMO-PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
KANSAS CITY MO 64106
Phone: 816-513-2588
Fax: 816-513-2615
E-mail: SHERRI_MCINTYRE@KCMO.ORG

GEORGIA NESSELRODE
600 BROADWAY, SUITE 300
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY MO 64105
Phone: 816-474-4240
Fax: 816-421-7758
E-mail: gnessel@marc.org

EARL NEWILL
103 N MAIN
JACKSON COUNTY-PUBLIC WORKS
INDEPENDENCE MO 64050
Phone: 816-881-4530
Fax: 816-881-4448
E-mail: ENEWILL@GW.CO.JACKSON.MO.US

STEVE NOBLE
414 E 12TH STREET, 15TH. FLOOR
CITY OF KCMO-PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
KANSAS CITY MO 64106
Phone: 816-513-2805
Fax: 816-513-
E-mail: STEPHEN_NOBLE@KCMO.ORG

MARJIE L NORTON
217 S.E. FOURTH STREET
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (4th)
TOPEKA KS 66603-3504
Phone: 785-296-3267
Fax: 785-296-0963
E-mail: NORTON@KSDOT.ORG

WARREN ROBERTS
1900 N.W. COOKINGHAM DRIVE
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
KANSAS CITY MO 64155-1260
Phone: 816-437-3628
E-mail: ROBERW@MAIL.MoDOT.STATE.MO.US

JOAN ROESELER
FTA. 901 LOCUST, ROOM 404
KANSAS CITY MO 64106
Phone: 816-329-3936
Fax: 816-329-3921
E-mail: JOAN.ROESELER@FTA.DOT.GOV

JOHN SCHMIDT
600 BROADWAY, SUITE 300
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY MO 64105
Phone: 816-474-4240
Fax: 816-421-7758
E-mail: JSCHMIDT@MARC.ORG

DAVE SCHWARTZ
DOCKING STATE OFFICE BUILDING 8TH FLOOR
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Docking)
TOPEKA KS 66603
Phone: 913-296-3221
Fax: 913-296-0963
E-mail: DAVIDS@KSDOT.ORG

JASON SIMS
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-0406
Fax: 816-622-0440
E-mail: SIMSE1@MAIL.MoDOT.STATE.MO.US

MICHAEL STELZLENI
P O BOX 270
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JEFFERSON CITY MO 65102
Phone: 573/526-2905
Fax: 573-526-3261
E-mail: STELZM@MAIL.MoDOT.STATE.MO.US

MARK STUECHELI
8500 SANTE FE DRIVE
CITY OF OVERLAND PARK-PLANNING
OVERLAND PARK KS 66212
Phone: 913-895-6026
Fax: 913-895-5016

LISA STUPPS
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone 816-622-6500
Fax: 816-622-

PAUL TAIT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
535 GRISWOLD, SUITE 300
DETROIT, MI 48226
Phone: 313-961-4266
Email: tait@semcog.org

JIM TEMPLER
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-6500
Fax: 816-622-

ROSALIE THORNBURGH
217 S.E. FOURTH STREET
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (4th)
TOPEKA KS 66603-3504
Phone: 785-296-3756
Fax: 785-291-3010
E-mail: ROSALIE@KSDOT.ORG

JIM TOBABEN
DOCKING STATE OFFICE BUILDING, 8TH. FLOOR
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Docking)
TOPEKA KS 66612-3841
Phone: 785-296-3865
Fax: 785-296-8168
E-mail:JIMT@KSDOT.ORG

CAROLINE TWENTER
10 STADIUM PLAZA
SWGCC
ST. LOUIS MO 63102
Phone: 314-421-4220
E-mail: CAROLINE.TWENTER@EWGATEWAY.ORG

MICHAEL WACHS
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-6595
Fax: 816-622-0499

KARL WALTERS
16616 NE 116TH
CLAY COUNTY-HIGHWAYS
KEARNEY MO 64060
Phone: 816-792-7606

JESSIE WARD
1200 E. 18TH ST
KCATA
KANSAS CITY MO 64108
Phone: 816/346-0850
Fax: 816-346-0305
E-mail: JWARD@KCATA.ORG

DAVID WARM
600 BROADWAY, SUITE 300
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY MO 64105
Phone: 816-474-4240
Fax: 816-421-7758
E-mail: dwarm@marc.org

JOHN WEISS
901 LOCUST, ROOM 404
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (Locust)
KANSAS CITY MO 64106
Phone: 816-329-3931
Fax: 816-329-3921
E-mail: JOHN.WEISS@FTA.DOT.GOV

BETH WRIGHT
600 N.E. COLBERN ROAD
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (KC)
KANSAS CITY MO 64064-8002
Phone: 816-622-6325
Fax: 816-622-6323
E-mail: WRIGHTE@MAIL.MoDOT.STATE.MO.US

Appendix b

Agenda

Planning It Safe
Integrating Safety in Transportation System Design and Operations

Tuesday, February 4, 2003

Agenda

Welcome and Introductions-David Warm, Executive Director, Mid-America Regional Council,

Joan Roessler, Federal Transit Administration, Region 7, Fred Abousleman, Director of Transportation, National Association of Regional Councils, Tere Franceschi, Office of Interstate and Border Planning, Federal Highway Administration

The State of the Art in Transportation Safety Planning-Paul Tait, Executive Director, SEMCOG

The Role of the User in Safety Transportation Systems-Bella Dinh-Zarr, Ph.D., National Director of Traffic Safety Policy, AAA

Regional Perspectives Panel-Project Design; Systems Operation (during & after construction); Public Transit, Pedestrians & Bicyclists; System User Behavior; System Planning

Breakout Discussions: Defining key issues to improve safety integration in Greater Kansas City)

What is working now? What needs improvement? What information or analysis is necessary for improvement? What action steps should be pursued?

Report Out

Adjournment

Appendix C

Evaluation Summary

  1. What is your overall rating of the seminar?

    Unsatisfactory (1) Below Average (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)

    Average Question Response Ranking: 3.93

  2. Was the seminar organized?

    Unsatisfactory (1) Below Average (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)

    Average Question Response Ranking: 4.18

  3. Was the seminar content useful?

    Unsatisfactory (1) Below Average (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)

    Average Question Response Ranking: 3.75

  4. Did the seminar meet your expectations?

    Yes (32) No (1)

  5. Please explain your answer to question # 4.

    This seminar provided useful information and basic knowledge on what the other agencies are doing.

    Hope to learn more about safety planning.

    Brought forth ideas to emphasize safety.

    Needed more details; but good thought starter.

    Didn't know what to expect. This is a starting point to expose the concept of shared development to address safety.

    Ideas discussed were useful.

    The lunch was good and the presentations too!

  6. Did the seminar leaders know the subject matter?

    Unsatisfactory (1) Below Average (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)

    Average Question Response Ranking: 4.12

  7. How well did the seminar leaders hold your attention?

    Unsatisfactory (1) Below Average (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)

    Average Question Response Ranking: 3.88

  8. Did the seminar leaders answer questions effectively?

    Unsatisfactory (1) Below Average (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)

    Average Question Response Ranking: 3.93

  9. Did the seminar leaders use relevant examples?

    Unsatisfactory (1) Below Average (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Excellent (5)

    Average Question Response Ranking: 4.00

  10. Did the seminar leaders cover all objectives?

    Yes (32) No (2)

  11. Please explain your answer to question # 10.

    The AAA person didn't really say much about the topic.

    Not enough time to explore good programs and ideas.

    The areas covered were good; might want to include law enforcement as they are strategic planners and a critical part of the process.

    More specific information could also be helpful.

    More time could be devoted to other related topics.

    Information exchange was good.

    Addressed issues of workshop.

  12. Additional comments.

    I would be interested in getting some "action plans" on how we can go about collaborating. Basically some "what next" discussion.

    Many asked that MARC keep them informed.

    The morning presentations were good, but I would have had an interactive discussion with whole room throughout the afternoon.

    The breakout was too long or we had too small a group-not diverse enough. I appreciate the opportunity to present SNS. Hope it helped.

    I really enjoyed Paul Tait's presentation.

[1]Deer crashes are an unwanted aspect of urban sprawl with the highest number of incidences occurring at dawn and dusk.

[2]Roberts said that the public's patience and acceptance of work zone delays has been amazingly congenial because of the strategies.

[3]Opticom is a device that changes the traffic signal to green for emergency vehicles.

To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Lorrie Lau at lorrie.lau@dot.gov.

FHWA Home | HEP Home | Feedback
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration